Opinion
December 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.).
Petitioner insurer seeks to stay an uninsured motorist arbitration demand by respondent, its insured, on the ground that the other vehicle involved in the accident is insured by respondent insurer. Respondent insurer claims that it cancelled its policy of insurance on the offending vehicle prior to the accident. At issue is whether respondent insurer's notice of cancellation sufficiently comported with Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) so as to make the cancellation effective.
We find that the notice was invalid because it failed to contain a statement, as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 313 (1) (a) clearly and unequivocally advising its former insured that insurance must be maintained continuously throughout the registration period (see, Barile v Kavanaugh, 67 N.Y.2d 392).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Ross and Rubin, JJ.